Objectionable content in pathfinder


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 348 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So there has been a fair bit of discussion about removing of certain unpleasant themes in APs and the setting, which obviously has been discussed to death but it does pose interesting question as to what to do with legacy content and what to do which monsters and creatures that really play on to those them.

In particular domination (used in particular in reference to the spell) and subjugation are themes of quite a large number of monsters. For instance vampires in particular are known to be really into mind control and having mind controlled servants. There are quite a few different thrall and spawn type monsters which are by very definition the result of what happens when free will is removed.

Also there are a number of monsters that forcefully use humanoids to reproduce (ghouls, shadows etc) which bares on to another heinous theme that should get much focus in the modern world.

Should creatures that are all about subjugation and dehumanisation exist in Golarian and should they remain a fairly common creatures to encounter in aps ?

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if this is the best thread to start, say, six hours before everyone in the company is away on an extended holiday.

That said, I'm hopeful this can stay reasonably civil...

The main difference here, I think, is that nobody is being subject to mind control, magical domination, forced supernatural reproduction, personality altering effects, or other such atrocities in the meat space. There are all fictional threats and conditions, unliked forced servitude which is a historical and even modern-day reality.

I don't think these should be discouraged and I don't believe they will go away at all, in fact... if anything these types of evil is probably going to HAVE to become more dominant in terms of the lore and storytelling that happens as the setting and adventures evolve given that the recent announcement to pull back on slavery themes as that topic has held an immense presence in world, stories, and nations of the setting. The stories told in Geb are going to have to be fundamentally different than the ones they would have made prior to deplatforming the slavery theme, the bellflower network would never have existed, entire APs would have been gutted down to the bones if one simply took those things out of them without replacing that with something ELSE evil that is going on so no, I don't think other dark themes will be taken away, nor should they be.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
siegfriedliner wrote:

So there has been a fair bit of discussion about removing of certain unpleasant themes in APs and the setting, which obviously has been discussed to death but it does pose interesting question as to what to do with legacy content and what to do which monsters and creatures that really play on to those them.

In particular domination (used in particular in reference to the spell) and subjugation are themes of quite a large number of monsters. For instance vampires in particular are known to be really into mind control and having mind controlled servants. There are quite a few different thrall and spawn type monsters which are by very definition the result of what happens when free will is removed.

Also there are a number of monsters that forcefully use humanoids to reproduce (ghouls, shadows etc) which bares on to another heinous theme that should get much focus in the modern world.

Should creatures that are all about subjugation and dehumanisation exist in Golarian and should they remain a fairly common creatures to encounter in aps ?

I was of the opinion that the nature of the subjugation and dehumanization didn't matter, especially in a fantasy setting, where reality is malleable, and magic exists and is an excuse to explain away all that which defies logic and realism.

But considering a mundane act is being retconned for the sake of the players or viewers, it should not surprise me that these such acts should likewise be removed as well.

After all, what difference does it make if the slaver is of a magical or supernatural descent instead of just some average Joe who just doesn't like a certain type of living being? That's really the question we are asking here, and if we are genuinely honest about this viewpoint, those should fall under the same vein.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
siegfriedliner wrote:


Should creatures that are all about subjugation and dehumanisation exist in Golarian and should they remain a fairly common creatures to encounter in aps ?

Yes.

Even more, since poverty and violence are very real things that affect hundreds (if not thousands) of millions of people, those themes should be left out of the game too.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

You should be able to separate fiction from reality. People should not confuse the two.

You should be able to read a fantasy story with a vampire enemy who is using its powers of domination without somehow transposing the power of the vampire as some kind of representation of a real world viewpoint.

You should be able to read about warriors fighting orcs without transposing some real world view on the fantasy conflict.

There is what happens in the real world that you know is wrong, is evil, is something you should be firmly against and what occurs in a fantasy world where some human storyteller is trying to create interesting conflict with high stakes against some fantastical or monstrous enemy.

Given the sheer volume of fantasy material you have to provide a lot of latitude to make for interesting stories, conflicts, monster creations, and the like to engage an audience who has "seen it all" at this point.

Then there is the simple business need to be aware of changing tastes and and a changing audience. If your audience changes, any business to stay competitive must adapt their creations to suit the current audience or risk going out of business or having their audience taken by a competitor.

It happens to almost every generation. Nothing stays the same forever. Businesses that don't pay attention to changing tastes and such risk obsolescence.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

A thinly veiled slippery slope argument seems like a dog whistle.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

Did we really need yet another thread like this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a few feelings, my first is that I think there is a degree to which this can be determined and discussed by play groups. DMs can change elements to involve less uncomfortable material etc. For example my play groups always ignore sexual content, especially sexual assault. I don't think my players should have to be confronted with the fact the bad guys has, does or would perform such a deed. I personally value that what challenging content is in my games is up to me, but also value that the designers can make things to their artistic vision. There is however stuff like hags and succubi which are just flat out sexist tropes imo and perhaps a discussion on stuff like that, as has been had about "inherently evil races", is worth having and removing it from the world, or fundamentally changing it or subverting it as is deemed appropriate.

My other feeling is that, I think it is problematic to ignore challenging things and pretend they didn't happen, not bring them up and discuss them. It makes me think of how the American education system sweep the genocide of indigenous people under the rug. Pretends it didn't happen. As mentioned above about slavery. Bad dudes being slavers, abusers, manipulators, fascists(you, know every lawful evil dude ever), *insert category* supremacists, genocidal monsters, political opportunists etc seems extremely appropriate. Otherwise, what are they? Thieves?(hugely classist) "Crazy" dudes who wanna 'destroy the world'? (ableist perhaps but also boring and a killer of immersion) Or worse, and likely most problematic yet, a reversion to the green racism of D&D's past where the bad guy is "the bad guy" because he is "the bad guy" to which inevitably some essentialist interpretation of evil arises. Also then bad guys are a floating signifier with no reference, pure simulacra. Idk about you, but I don't want bad guys that remind me of the post modern hell that is the Cheesecake Factory.

I sympathize with the fact no easy answer is possible here, but I lean on the side of allowing the designers to express what they want and gaming groups adjust this to what they feel is appropriate. Golarian is a different Golarian at every table after all, one which is personal to that gaming group


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not really a slippery slope argument some of the monsters in the game are viserally unpleasant and I haven't encountered an ap without a charnal House of horrors. If you look at a lot of the oldest adventures in d20 a lot of them are nasty and means spirited. That was mostly because they were inspired by stuff like conan novels, lovrcraft etc and the middle ages those works and that time were very interesting but undoubtably are utterly objectionable by modern standards.

We have been thankfully moving away from old d&d styling but there are still some lingering objectionable elements and themes from those times which could be exised and this includes a lot of the monsters which suited the grimmer dark old school d&d but might be less suitable for the games more assesibly modern format.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

H.P. Lovecraft wasn't sane. Anything based on his works will fall automatically into some insane dark fantasy that you don't want to think about too much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Honestly the nuance of the situation is very complicated and I am sure there are going to have to be a lot of in house conversations about what is going to feel right going forward and how paizo's definition of "feeling right" is probably not a monolithic position and will have to be a constant conversation where the decision makers keep their ears and minds open to the voices whom they have not done a great job of listening to in the past.

Beyond that, I don't really see that there is too much that we can do as players other than possibly suggest the kinds of themes and plots that we would like to see more of in the future so we can all remember that this is not about taking stories away, but telling new ones fairly and interestingly without having to rely on the trauma of others for our own entertainment.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What else can they do for APs?

Let's think.

Runelords twice. Rise and Return.

Kingmaker making a kingdom.

Mythic Wrath of the Righteous and close the World Wound.

Major humanoid invasion with Ironfang Invasion.

Robots and such with Iron Gods.

City Watch with Agents of Edgewatch.

Fight against devil leaders with Hell's Rebellion.

Horror theme with Carrion Crown.

Giants with Giantslayer.

Magic school in Strength of Thousands.

Paizo done a lot of APs. That's why it is real hard to know what not doing dark stories or objectionable material even means. What does that look like? Will we even notice?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does it provoke a horrid, visceral reaction would be a good starting point.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Does it provoke a horrid, visceral reaction would be a good starting point.

What does that mean in PF? No Qlippoths? Some of the monsters just existing evokes a horrid, visceral reaction if you think about them.

Some of the demons are pretty terrible.

The velstracs seem pretty nasty. They are basically Hellraiser cenobytes brought to life.

And undead, well,....

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I would ask my players before I drop Qlippoths or Velstracs into a game.

But "I'm a horrible gorey monster" provokes a different feeling than having elements like slavery or rape would. The two are not equatable and trying to make to state as if they're all the same does a disservice to horrors such as slavery and rape.

Does the net good outweigh the horror, you should ask yourself, rather than pouting in threads number I-don't-care about slavery no longer going to be the focus of stories in Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As mentioned above and in other threads, many GMs have had to remove content that alienated or disturbed their tables. System's working, right? I'd say that depends on how many are cutting how much. And how well that content meshes with Paizo's PG-13 standards (because yes, many young teens run these games w/o adult oversight to guide them through the precarious terrain). While yes, Paizo could've gone grimdark w/ the burden on the GMs to sanitize to taste, there's no reason Paizo couldn't instead provide a middlin' (PG-13) world where GMs wanting grit can add that flavor. There will still be people sanitizing that! (We had a batch of 8 years olds who'd come to cons around here and PFS scenarios altered accordingly.)

Anyway, what I'm trying to say there's a spectrum of topics from those one should never be faced with to seldom have issues with it. Somewhere in there is a blurry line denoting where gamers should have to opt in or opt out from including the topic at their table. And each of us (and each Paizo employee for that matter) has a different sense of that spectrum and where that line should fall. For inclusiveness (and perhaps family appeal) Paizo has reevaluated its line(s), recognized they might not have the same sensibilities as others, and that erring on the side of caution works best (for their intentions w/ the game that is).

I'm all for Paizo erring on the side of caution; it's easier to tune an adventure to a broader audience that way I'd think. I'd also reckon it's simpler at the table to ad lib grimdark than to adlib subtraction-of-grimdark (especially if wound deep into the dialogue and story threads). Golarion will remain a firm platform for all levels of narrative AFAICT, and that's what matters most IMO (as well as Paizo's comfort level!).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Yeah, I would ask my players before I drop Qlippoths or Velstracs into a game.

But "I'm a horrible gorey monster" provokes a different feeling than having elements like slavery or rape would. The two are not equatable and trying to make to state as if they're all the same does a disservice to horrors such as slavery and rape.

Does the net good outweigh the horror, you should ask yourself, rather than pouting in threads number I-don't-care about slavery no longer going to be the focus of stories in Pathfinder.

When giving my players options for upcoming campaigns, degree of grimdark (and how much it can be tuned) is one factor (alongside difficulty, length, theme, etc.).

And at least once I had to make a major change on the fly since a player freaked out at the campaign's second encounter; a spider. In the first encounter, she'd even said "At least it hadn't been spiders", yet I hadn't realized how deep the sentiment went. So no spiders after that...in a campaign with tangential connections to Lolth (Demon Queen of Spiders for those unfamiliar). Thankfully only tangentially!

I'd think a campaign focused on Qlippoths or Velstracs would (or should) advertise the grimness. As a passing encounter, perhaps not so much though I wouldn't expect either in a Shannara/LotR level narrative. In the same vein, I'd expect some subscribers would've dropped out when Carrion Crown rolled around, but that's a matter of transparency; a good thing so consumers have an inkling of how much grimdark they're getting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

What else can they do for APs?

Let's think.

Runelords twice. Rise and Return.

Kingmaker making a kingdom.

Mythic Wrath of the Righteous and close the World Wound.

Major humanoid invasion with Ironfang Invasion.

Robots and such with Iron Gods.

City Watch with Agents of Edgewatch.

Fight against devil leaders with Hell's Rebellion.

Horror theme with Carrion Crown.

Giants with Giantslayer.

Magic school in Strength of Thousands.

Paizo done a lot of APs. That's why it is real hard to know what not doing dark stories or objectionable material even means. What does that look like? Will we even notice?

A lot of that is previous content though, it's not particularly relevant if we consider that we're talking about Paizo going forward, not looking back. But if we're going to be looking back at the things they have written in the past, let's compare it to other objectionable things that people should be up in arms about.

Well, the first Runelords has plenty of adult/objectionable content that I've seen. Between the Goblins, Giants, etc., you'll have more than enough things that are no-no for the uninitiated. Never played the second, but if it's anything like the first, there'll be more than enough, I imagine.

Kingmaker is so open-ended that it's really table variation (probably why it's the most successful AP Paizo has ever made), but since it's a per-table thing, it's totally fine, I guess. This is basically the only AP that would actually function regardless of table. (Sounds like we've cracked the successful AP code.)

Wrath of the Righteous is basically all about powering up and slaying demons, and demons are known for all kinds of notably sinful things, including adultery, murder, torture, etc. Some even vary on how they do those things. Regardless, we can't have those elements be a part of the story, especially if they escape or defeat the PCs or fulfill whatever schemes they have.

Ironfang Invasion would include savage humanoids like Orcs, Bugbears, etc. which have had a very bad rapport for adult/objectionable content since their conception, even if Pathfinder tries to go out of its way to minimize its appearance/relevance, it probably still contains content similar to certain parts of Runelords #1.

For Hell's Rebels, devils are basically the legalistic cousins of demons, the only difference is they actually follow rules set by superior Evils, and find value in the rules they keep, which is just a different form of evil. And depending on what you do with the slain leaders, you either become the very thing you just killed, or you create a power vacuum and don't really solve the problem. A lose/lose situation.

Carrion Crown has all kinds of undead, whether they be fleshfeasting ghouls and zombies, horrid skeletons, haunting ghosts and wraiths, etc. The ghouls and zombies alone would be a no-go for this type of campaign, and depending on body condition and method of disposal, we can expect to see bodily gore and mutilation that would make most people upheave their lunches. Everything else is just icing on the cake at that point.

Giantslayer basically runs into the same issues as Ironfang Invasion and parts of Runelords #1 for similar themes, since they are very similar creatures, their only real difference is stature and overall culture. (There also aren't like over a dozen different types of Orcs and Bugbears compared to Giants, so...more variety of the same unethical stuff to show it's not just a matter of racism?)

Haven't played Strength of Thousands, but if we even analog Harry Potter to its expectations, Harry Potter features death and evil and plenty of other adult-oriented concepts, even if subtly. Suggesting Strength of Thousands can't would mean it's even more tame than Harry Potter, which is a relatively bold claim to make since most people acknowledge that Harry Potter is a family-oriented film.

As far as I'm concerned, Paizo has done plenty of adult-oriented concepts and themes in APs with very visceral and horrid applications to it that it feels baffling to me that slavery, with the publishing of Age of Ashes, is the straw that breaks the camel's back for their adult-oriented concepts and themes.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

To me it feels disengenuous to claim to not understand the difference between "squicky things go bump in the night" or "let's got beat up Dracula" and stories about cruelty and oppression.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

They just don't wanna write about it anymore. It's not that hard to understand, and demanding they continue to do so anyway is childish entitlement.

The game is still good. The writing is still good. For the topics the Paizo team doesn't want to touch anymore, Infinite is right there for all of the folks who want it back, and all the 1e material didn't go anywhere.

I'm so tired of this same thread, over and over.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Fantasy games innately have a lot of uncomfortable and disturbing material. Not sure how you make a game involving the types of creatures in it without having elements of cruelty and oppression.

What does that look like? In terms of an adventure?

One of the upcoming APs is Blood Lords. Nothing in that sounds very nice. The area it is located is very cruel and oppressive.

How exactly do you write an AP that doesn't have an enemy that is cruel and oppressive? What will they be doing? What APs would fall into the category of acceptable material?

Kingmaker?

Wrath of the Righteous?

I've played quite a few APs. I haven't seen too much of a focus on any of the seemingly taboo topics other than they might exist in the region.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
To me it feels disengenuous to claim to not understand the difference between "squicky things go bump in the night" or "let's got beat up Dracula" and stories about cruelty and oppression.

So if a story is "We're gonna go hunt these monsters that have been killing people," or We're gonna go kill this accursed guy and put him out of his misery for doing evil stuff," it's fine. Extremely boring and cliche, but fine nonetheless.

But if the story is instead "We're gonna go kill this accursed guy and put him out of his misery for doing evil stuff, like slavery," it's all of a sudden not acceptable? Because that's essentially the message being sent, which is just bupkis, since the only difference between the two statements is two words.

If we substituted Dracula for any other real life figure associated with cruelty and oppression (which there are many), what fundamentally changes with the overall tone of the story that it instantly becomes an unacceptable story to tell? Because the real life figures don't possess supernatural powers that aid them in their ability to do their evil stuff? Because the real life figures aren't undead monstrosities that you have no biological association with, and therefore it's easy to dehumanize and consequently not feel remorse or pity for the thing? Because the real life figures don't have names commonly associated with the previous two questions?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"How exactly do you write an AP that doesn't have an enemy that is cruel and oppressive?"

Easy, lot's of ways. You don't need slavery to showcase that.

This is why people called those halfhearted attempts to provoke emotional torque lazy writing, by slapping slaver or rapist on someone for an easy Evil target, people apparently don't know how to function without it.

"How can we story if no slave" *bonks clubs in confusion*

Easy, you know how many of the games I've run have had slavery or rape in them? ZERO.

It's not hard, and those elements aren't integral to telling a story.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

"If we substituted Dracula for any other real life figure associated with cruelty and oppression (which there are many),"

I vote for Vlad Tepes.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

"If we substituted Dracula for any other real life figure associated with cruelty and oppression (which there are many),"

I vote for Vlad Tepes.

Har har.

The story behind the character of Vlad Tepes is interesting, and has many numerous backstories, all of which may have some truth to them with the fueling of Bram Stoker's Dracula, among other versions of the character concept. The one I personally like is the one where he is a crusader of Christianity, whose wife was accused of witchcraft, and consequently burnt at the stake, and as for punishment of being betrothed to an accused witch, God cursed him with diseased blood incapable of intaking sustenance, and the inability to see the light of day again, and exiled him from those whom would not welcome him. As such, he could not drink or risk any interaction with water, he could not be out in direct sunlight (lest he burns), he could not enter a home uninvited, he could not eat cattle or plants (since he no longer has blood to fuel with energy) as it would not sustain him, instead blood does, as that is what God deprived him of, and thus forces him to be the evil, vengeful, honeyed-worded bloodsucker we appreciate him, and others of his kind to be today.

But really, this story serves as the means to dehumanize and otherize Dracula to justify others in wanting him dead, even though, when the story is boiled down to its realistic idealisms, and the fantasy elements are removed from the story, the character is met with an unjust accusation, causing the loss of a loved one, is considered guilty by association, and is punished by mere happenstance and false platitudes, thereby providing a villain with fair motivations.

In short, dehumanizing/otherizing things shouldn't give us justification for murder or other horrid acts, especially when it is used as an argument to disallow slavery in storytelling.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And in regards to humanoids and that particular story of Dracula you would be correct, but when you have something that has no actual real life counterpart or approximation and human sapience equivalence (Undead, Aberrations, Immortals, etc), that doesn't hold up the same way as say don't other this green skinned human and slavery is bad ya'know.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think for a productive conversation, less of the focus should be on the taboo subjects which were rare to nonexistent in APs to start with. I think the only AP Paizo wrote with a strong slavery element was Age of Ashes where you're fighting them. I haven't yet played any AP where anyone focused on the other topic someone feels the need to keep bringing up.

Paizo has produced a lot of APs. Not sure it will have much of an effect on their storytelling to exclude certain subjects that they never spent much time on to start with.

But what about something like an Ironfang Invasion or Carrion Crown? Is that still going to be part of the world? Horror elements and humanoid wars?

Combat is a heavy element of these games. I'm thinking we'll still see a high level of conflict within the game world as it drives the majority of the game.

I think it will be interesting to see going forward what an AP looks like after say Blood Lords or even what Blood Lords looks like given the changes.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

They just don't wanna write about it anymore. It's not that hard to understand, and demanding they continue to do so anyway is childish entitlement.

I'd also say in regards to the higher up's in Paizo it's more a case of they have decided it's less profitable compared to the amount of headaches it causes also a pretty easy pr win for them when they could really use some good pr.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Like there were a lot of 90s RPGs that I played that had "terrorism" (possibly committed *by* the PCs) as a major potential theme. If events in the world made the authors of those games less inclined to write stories about terrorism for those games, people would get it right?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
And in regards to humanoids and that particular story of Dracula you would be correct, but when you have something that has no actual real life counterpart or approximation and human sapience equivalence (Undead, Aberrations, Immortals, etc), that doesn't hold up the same way as say don't other this green skinned human and slavery is bad ya'know.

There's no actual real life counterpart to orcs, drow/dark elves, duergars and such either, and yet people still use actual real life events as justification for things that are obviously fantasy. It's a problem of conflating real world issues with a setting that should be, for the most part, absolutely independent of said real world issues, especially when a fantasy setting usually sets itself out to do just that; devoid itself from the real world in clear and obvious ways.

Slavery is only one facet of things that are quite high up there in the "No-No" Inclusion Zone for Paizo. It just seems contrived that (Gruesome) Murder/Death, Torture, and Rape are fine (to a point) to include in stories, if they progress the plot in meaningful ways, but Slavery, no matter what, is just too taboo to permit in any circumstance now?

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

"There's no actual real life counterpart to orcs, drow/dark elves, duergars and such either"

Well they're humanoids with human sapience (written by humans to be played by humans) so you're wrong.

"It just seems contrived that (Gruesome) Murder/Death, Torture, and Rape are fine (to a point) to include in stories, if they progress the plot in meaningful ways,"

Who said that? Who?

"but Slavery, no matter what, is just too taboo to permit in any circumstance now?"

Get this through you're head, Paizo doesn't solicit stories from writers, they give out assignments. They're not NOT permitting anything, they, the writers, don't want to do those stories anymore.

Don't wanna =/= not allowed

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am amazed at the energy some people will spend just to make sure Paizo bows to their will so that slavery stays in future official products.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

However you slice it, "objectionable" is not objective. Paizo updates us on where their subjective standards have shifted, what thinking has gone into those choices, and how they've expanded the breadth of voices that have input.
I don't know what more one can reasonably ask of any company, much less one that has a delicate balancing act developing immersive gaming experiences for all. Sure, one can ask Paizo to cater to one's own sense of the objectionable, yet I wouldn't call that reasonable. I know my tolerances match few people's out there.

And it seems to me that most of the voices complaining about change are ones who have long been heard. Please take a step back, imagine being an unheard gamer, and afterward ask what principles guide your counterarguments. It's not like we (or Paizo) hadn't heard (or even thought of) the arguments in these threads. Yet let's go behind those and ask what's your end goal here? What are the principles that lead you, if any?

For me, inclusiveness seems a driving principle worth pursuing, as does the classic sentiment of "do no harm" which necessitates listening to the harmed, and perhaps us taking a larger share of the emotional labor. Paizo puts effort into doing this, so good on them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
I am amazed at the energy some people will spend just to make sure Paizo bows to their will so that slavery stays in future official products.

About as much as any people who want or don't want anything in any media they consume. Which is posting discussions about it.

In terms of my total calories consumption per day it probably does t even break 1%.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
To me it feels disengenuous to claim to not understand the difference between "squicky things go bump in the night" or "let's got beat up Dracula" and stories about cruelty and oppression.

What feels disingenuous to me is this sort of reductive misrepresentation of the original question. In fact, this thread did not have to be about slavery at all, and clearly both sides are to blame for this derailment.

Returning to the original topic, I don't think it's bad faith or a 'dogwhistle' at all. The question of mind control is complicated and interesting on its own, even without alluding to recent events.

First off, I don't think the argument that this sort of domination is pure fantasy holds all that much water. Sure, we don't have magic, but we do have indoctrination, miseducation, false pretenses - many things that parallel enchantment magic in some respect or other. I recall some adventure specifically mentioning that the villain casts Charm Person on this one NPC every day. It's not that difficult to imagine substituting a non-magical alternative here.

Second, I am not personally familiar with trauma but I would assume that it doesn't generally need superficial operational parallels for a trigger - emotional states can suffice. And if you think about, say, a magically dominated person who still has some mental acuity left to be conscious of their situation, though unable to change it... It's definitely not the same as just 'squick' horror. There is more to it.

Finally, I think what sets magical enchantment and domination apart is that the PCs can benefit from it. There aren't even alignment repercussions. It's considered perfectly fine, in game terms, to take away other creatures' free will by magical means. There are, of course, arguments to be made for that. (One could say, for example, that Dominate is a combat spell, so other standards of morality apply by default.) But it's worth pointing out.

So what's my position? I don't know. The one thing I want people to recognize is that this is a difficult subject, and accusing people who want to talk about it of slippery-slope fallacies and bad faith arguments is unhelpful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
painted_green wrote:
...

To this whole post what I have to say is that the Mesmerist will likely never get ported over to PF2. Nor will any of the spooky, weird, and sometimes evil archetypes that were created. If Paizo does decide to port them over, it will be a miracle given the direction they are taking.

It also does feel like they are going to start labeling all the new enchantment spells as uncommon or rare. There really isn't much that enchantment does besides mind control and buffs.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

We have Evil Champions and Clerics can have Evil deities, don't get much more evil than that.

Not wanting to do slavery focused stories anymore is not the same as them tearing everything down.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
painted_green wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
To me it feels disengenuous to claim to not understand the difference between "squicky things go bump in the night" or "let's got beat up Dracula" and stories about cruelty and oppression.
What feels disingenuous to me is this sort of reductive misrepresentation of the original question. In fact, this thread did not have to be about slavery at all, and clearly both sides are to blame for this derailment.

Yes. I am sure the timing is pure coincidence.

As is the title BTW. I could guess the way it was going even just reading the title. I went and read it nonetheless because I honestly thought maybe it was about a real new topic. I was disappointed on this part, but not surprised in the least.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
painted_green wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
To me it feels disengenuous to claim to not understand the difference between "squicky things go bump in the night" or "let's got beat up Dracula" and stories about cruelty and oppression.

What feels disingenuous to me is this sort of reductive misrepresentation of the original question. In fact, this thread did not have to be about slavery at all, and clearly both sides are to blame for this derailment.

Returning to the original topic, I don't think it's bad faith or a 'dogwhistle' at all. The question of mind control is complicated and interesting on its own, even without alluding to recent events.

First off, I don't think the argument that this sort of domination is pure fantasy holds all that much water. Sure, we don't have magic, but we do have indoctrination, miseducation, false pretenses - many things that parallel enchantment magic in some respect or other. I recall some adventure specifically mentioning that the villain casts Charm Person on this one NPC every day. It's not that difficult to imagine substituting a non-magical alternative here.

Second, I am not personally familiar with trauma but I would assume that it doesn't generally need superficial operational parallels for a trigger - emotional states can suffice. And if you think about, say, a magically dominated person who still has some mental acuity left to be conscious of their situation, though unable to change it... It's definitely not the same as just 'squick' horror. There is more to it.

Finally, I think what sets magical enchantment and domination apart is that the PCs can benefit from it. There aren't even alignment repercussions. It's considered perfectly fine, in game terms, to take away other creatures' free will by magical means. There are, of course, arguments to be made for that. (One could say, for example, that Dominate is a combat spell, so other standards of morality apply by default.) But it's worth pointing out.

So what's my position? I don't know. The one...

Chaotic will very likely fight against anything that takes away free will. But that is Chaotic. Not Good. Good cares about whether you hurt innocent people or not.

Chaotic and Good are not to be confused.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Temperans wrote:
painted_green wrote:
...
To this whole post what I have to say is that the Mesmerist will likely never get ported over to PF2. Nor will any of the spooky, weird, and sometimes evil archetypes that were created. If Paizo does decide to port them over, it will be a miracle given the direction they are taking.

The Charm and Dominate spells are basically enough already to do everything I touched on. I also just noticed that Dominate lasts a long time, so my example argument about it being a combat spell is invalid (I must have misremembered that).

I would compare and contrast enchantment with necromancy, which has evil written all over it in all of the books, but in some respects could be fairly, if somewhat polemically, called 'enchantment with extra steps'. To me, there are some strong similarities between animating a zombie (for a limited time) and dominating a person. I don't quite see why the first should be evil and the second not, but I am open to explanations.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
painted_green wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
To me it feels disengenuous to claim to not understand the difference between "squicky things go bump in the night" or "let's got beat up Dracula" and stories about cruelty and oppression.
What feels disingenuous to me is this sort of reductive misrepresentation of the original question. In fact, this thread did not have to be about slavery at all, and clearly both sides are to blame for this derailment.

Yes. I am sure the timing is pure coincidence.

As is the title BTW. I could guess the way it was going even just reading the title. I went and read it nonetheless because I honestly thought maybe it was about a real new topic. I was disappointed on this part, but not surprised in the least.

It is not a coincidence and I never claimed it was. The op specifically states that he came up with this thread because of the recent focus on such topics. But that doesn't mean that this thread is about slavery.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Animate Dead does not have the Evil trait in PF2 FWIW.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
painted_green wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
painted_green wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
To me it feels disengenuous to claim to not understand the difference between "squicky things go bump in the night" or "let's got beat up Dracula" and stories about cruelty and oppression.
What feels disingenuous to me is this sort of reductive misrepresentation of the original question. In fact, this thread did not have to be about slavery at all, and clearly both sides are to blame for this derailment.

Yes. I am sure the timing is pure coincidence.

As is the title BTW. I could guess the way it was going even just reading the title. I went and read it nonetheless because I honestly thought maybe it was about a real new topic. I was disappointed on this part, but not surprised in the least.

It is not a coincidence and I never claimed it was. The op specifically states that he came up with this thread because of the recent focus on such topics. But that doesn't mean that this thread is about slavery.

Then we should all put it on hiatus to come back and discuss it later. When the ripples of Paizo's decision about slavery in their products have died down.

Right now, this kind of topics are just putting unnecessary fuel on a raging inferno that makes many people's days a living hell, especially the brave moderators.

No need for that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
painted_green wrote:
Temperans wrote:
painted_green wrote:
...
To this whole post what I have to say is that the Mesmerist will likely never get ported over to PF2. Nor will any of the spooky, weird, and sometimes evil archetypes that were created. If Paizo does decide to port them over, it will be a miracle given the direction they are taking.

The Charm and Dominate spells are basically enough already to do everything I touched on. I also just noticed that Dominate lasts a long time, so my example argument about it being a combat spell is invalid (I must have misremembered that).

I would compare and contrast enchantment with necromancy, which has evil written all over it in all of the books, but in some respects could be fairly, if somewhat polemically, called 'enchantment with extra steps'. To me, there are some strong similarities between animating a zombie (for a limited time) and dominating a person. I don't quite see why the first should be evil and the second not, but I am open to explanations.

Those are the most well known and most linked to that topic. But there are plenty that follow a similar theme. Everything from spells that make the target fascinated to spells that lower the physical/mental condition of the target.

Also, it one of those weird parts where there are plenty of necromancy spells that are used for good. But a decent number of them are not, without some stretching of the lore/motivations.


Dark themes can be good when explored it an interesting fashion and agnowleged but most role-playing groups I have encountered tend struggle to deal with them well.

I recently played one of pathfinder aps and there was a horrible torture and murder hotel. Our group apart from my character treated it like just another dungeon but it wasn't the whole place was just the product of cruelty and the worst of humanity.

Now It was film or book we have nightmares and flashbacks stuff to show the horrors that were seen lingered on. But this being an ap the very next evening there was more of the same (well not quite as bad yet).

Rpg aren't great for letting themes breath.

Monsters are often as much human expys as goblins and orcs. Vampire in particular are often a metaphor for nobles/rich and powerful who drain the life blood out of working people. The iconic vampires were inspired by real people, Dracula and Camilla for example.

If vampires are theme in your game and there being played straight you will encounter the worst of humanity in them. People being robbed of their freedom and will so they serve a rich and powerful undying elite as either cattle or chattle.

Discussing the themes of monsters is interesting. But I have to admit I started this thread after playing baldusts gate 3 and thinking about mindflayers/ ilithids a highly intelligent and cultured and civilised monster that whole society are based around subjugation and consumption of lives, which made me think that people themes and monster themes aren't all that separate and that maybe if were trying to build a better more open space we need to be wairy of monster themes too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking or Dracula and more specifically Vlad. I highly recommend people to go watch the Extra Credit videos on him. Yeah they are not the most accurate, but they are 100% more accurate than most vampire lore. TLDR, depending on who you ask Vlad was either a monster for impaling people (which he learned from the Ottoman Empire), or a patriotic hero who kept Romania independent despite being surrounded by incredibly powerful countries.

On a similar note. Do go watch the Overly Sarcastic Productions video on Dracula. Red gives an excellent retelling of how we got to the current lore. Which is very complicated to say the least. (They also have some great content on how to make a good villain/hero).

Vlad the Impaler - Extra Credit playlist.
Dracula - OSP


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I am amazed at the energy some people will spend just to make sure Paizo bows to their will so that slavery stays in future official products.

Arent you doing the exact same thing in reverse?

1 to 50 of 348 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Objectionable content in pathfinder All Messageboards